Skip to main content

Agenda item

22/02749/REM - Employment Land East of Spratsgate Lane, Cirencester

Summary

Application for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the employment area to the east of Spratsgate Lane, Cirencester, Gloucestershire

 

Case Officer

Anthony Keown

 

Ward Member

Councillor Gary Selwyn

 

Recommendation

Resolution to APPROVE subject to planning obligations

Minutes:

The Planning Consultant introduced the site’s history and context. The application was for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the employment area to the east of Spratsgate Lane, Cirencester, Gloucestershire.

 

Public Speakers

 

James Hicks, the agent on the application addressed the committee. They stated that the applicant had been working with the Council to address concerns of the application, which included acoustic elements of the application. They also explained that the car parking provision met the requirements of Gloucestershire County Council.

 

The Ward Member did not comment on the application.

 

Member Questions

 

Members stated that the area was classed for employment use and asked what types of businesses would fall within this. The Planning Consultant explained that this would be use classes B2 (general industrial use) and B8 (storage or distribution)

 

Members asked about uses such as tool stations, with a small outlet for the public, and how much of this retail use could be carried out without seeking planning provision. The Planning Consultant explained that there were established guidelines for when storage use became retail, but that this essentially required it to be ancillary use.

 

Members discussed the parking issues. The Planning Consultant explained that the policy parameters around parking, and that the parking was maximum for B8, not B2. The parking required for what the Council deemed to be safe would be in excess of what would be fair on the applicant and cause increased damage to the environment. Therefore the condition of a TRO (traffic regulation order) was added in. Other mitigations included were increased cycle parking and a travel plan. 

 

The acoustics report was discussed. The Planning Consultant explained that the Council’s acoustics specialist stated that the applicant’s mitigation was insufficient, so this was included within the reserved matters of the application.

 

Members asked the Planning Consultant how the unilateral undertaking related to the conditions with the report. The Planning Consultant explained that this related to financial contributions to the parking and the pedestrian link that the applicant had offered to build.

 

Members asked whether all subsequent applications on the site would be considered by the Committee. The Planning Consultant stated that the scheme of delegation, which addressed such matters was being reconsidered by the Council at present. The reason the application was brought to the Committee was due to objections on the contentious parking and noise issues, and so it was deemed to bring the specific application to committee.

 

Members also discussed the lighting aspects of the application.

 

Member Comments

 

Members welcomed the additional employment opportunities within the District but stated that caution should be taken that the development should not evolve into retail use.

 

Councillor Andrew Maclean proposed permitting the application, welcoming the employment opportunities it provided.

 

Councillor Fowles seconded the proposal.

 

It was discussed that the agent had been cut off after three minutes, as customary for the Committee. Members felt they would have wanted to hear the remainder of the agent’s statement, specifically about the BREAM statement. Members suggested that the process potentially be re-evaluated, so that they could ask questions of the agent or applicant, as at other Local Authorities.

 

Members stated that Cirencester was a ‘net importer’ of employees, and that traffic implications existed. They also urged that if any issues existed as a result of the proposals, that residents report these to environmental health.

 

RESOLVED: That the Planning Committee DELEGATES AUTHORITY to the Interim Head of Planning Services to determine this application subject to:

 

a) the completion of a UU prior to the Decision Notice being issued, which secures a financial contribution sufficient to enable the local highway authority to progress and implement the parking restrictions described in this report, and which also secures the submission of (and the opportunity to determine) an RMA for the additional landscaping described in this report; b) agreement of a satisfactory scheme for controlling noise emitted from the development, if such a scheme has not already been agreed prior to the Planning Committee meeting;

 

c) the suggested draft conditions set out in this report;

 

d) delegated authority being given to the Interim Head of Planning Services to amend and/or add to the suggested draft conditions prior to the Decision Notice being issued, where such amendments would be legally sound and would not deviate significantly from the purpose of the draft conditions;

 

e) expiry of the necessary additional public consultation exercise;

 

f) careful consideration being given to any further representations received in response to that additional public consultation exercise; and

 

g) referring the application back to the Planning Committee if any new or altered material considerations arise before the grant of reserved matters approval which, in the view of the Interim Head of Planning Services, may have the effect of altering the resolution.

 

Voting record

 8 for, 1 against, 1 abstention, 1 Absent/did not vote

 

For

Against

Abstain

Andrew Maclean

Dilys Neill

Gary Selwyn

 Daryl Corps

 

 

David Fowles

 

 

Ian Watson

 

 

Julia Judd

 

 

Mark Harris

 

 

Michael Vann

 

 

Ray Brassington

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages